Contents

Mark Leonard cites several factors: the EU's large population, large economy (the EU has the largest economy in the world in terms of nominal GDP), low inflation rates, the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent[when?] years. He compares this with the high quality of life (especially when measured in terms such as hours worked per week, health care, social services) of certain EU member states.[9]

John McCormick believes that the EU has already achieved superpower status, based on the size and global reach of its economy and on its global political influence. He argues that the nature of power has changed since the Cold War-driven definition of superpower was developed, and that military power is no longer essential to great power; he argues that control of the means of production is more important than control of the means of destruction, and contrasts the threatening hard power of the United States with the opportunities offered by the soft power wielded by the European Union.[10]

Andrew Reding also takes the future EU enlargement into account. An eventual future accession of the rest of Europe, the whole of Russia, and Turkey, would not only boost the economy of the EU, but it would also increase the EU's population to about 800 million, which he considers almost equal to that of India or China. The EU is qualitatively different from India and China since it is enormously more prosperous and technologically advanced.[2] Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said in 2005: "In 10 or 15 years, the EU will be a place where civilizations meet. It will be a superpower with the inclusion of Turkey."[15]

Robert J. Guttman wrote in 2001 that the very definition of the term superpower has changed and in the 21st century, it does not only refer to states with military power, but also to groups such as the European Union, with strong market economics, young, highly educated workers savvy in high technology, and a global vision.[16]Friis Arne Petersen, the Danish ambassador to the US, has expressed similar views. He conceded that the EU is a "special kind of superpower," one that has yet to establish a unified military force that exerts itself even close to the same level as many of its individual members.[17]

Additionally, it is argued by commentators that full political integration is not required for the European Union to wield international influence: that its apparent weaknesses constitute its real strengths (as of its low profile diplomacy and the emphasis on the rule of law)[10] and that the EU represents a new and potentially more successful type of international actor than traditional ones;[18] however, it is uncertain if the effectiveness of such an influence would be equal to that of a more politically integrated union of states such as the United States.[19]

Barry Buzan notes that the EU's potential superpower status depends on its "stateness". It is unclear though how much state-like quality is needed for the EU to be described as a superpower. Buzan states that the EU is unlikely to remain a potential superpower for a long time because although it has material wealth, its "political weakness and its erratic and difficult course of internal political development, particularly as regards a common foreign and defence policy" constrains it from being a superpower.[20]

Alexander Stubb, the FinnishMinister for Foreign Affairs, has said that he thinks the EU is both a superpower and not a superpower. While the EU is a superpower in the sense that it is the largest political union, single market and aid donor in the world, it is not a superpower in the defense or foreign policy spheres. Like Barry Buzan, Alexander Stubb thinks that the most major factor constraining the EU's rise to superpower status is its lack of statehood in the international system, other factors are its lack of internal drive to project power worldwide, and continued preference for the sovereign nation-state among some Europeans. To counterbalance these, he urged the EU leaders to approve and ratify the Lisbon Treaty (which they did in 2009), create an EU foreign ministry (EEAS, established in 2010), develop a common EU defense, hold one collective seat at the UN Security Council and G8, and address what he described as the "sour mood" toward the EU prevalent in some European countries today.[21]

Some do not believe that the EU will achieve superpower status. "The EU is not and never will be a superpower" according to the former UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AffairsDavid Miliband.[22] EU parliamentarian Ilka Schroeder argues that conflicts such as the Israeli–Palestinian dispute see close EU involvement largely to compensate for European inability to project military power internationally.[23]

The Economist's Robert Lane Greene notes that the lack of a strong European military only exacerbates the lack of unified EU foreign policy and discounts any EU arguments towards superpower status, noting especially that the EU's creation of a global response force rivaling the superpower's (United States of America) is "unthinkable."[24] "The biggest barrier to European superpowerdom is that European elites refuse to bring their postmodern fantasies about the illegitimacy of military 'hard power' into line with the way the rest of the world interprets reality" according to Soren Kern of Strategic Studies Group.[25]

Britain's Michael Howard has warned against the "worry" that many Europeans are pushing for greater EU integration to counterbalance the United States,[26] while Europe's total reliance on soft (non-military) power is in part because of its lack of a "shared identity."[27] While to some the European Union should be a "model power" unafraid of using military force and backing free trade, its military shortcomings argue against superpower status.[28]

George Osborne, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, has also pointed to what he saw as an economic crisis of the European Union. In 2014, Osborne said: "The biggest economic risk facing Europe doesn't come from those who want reform and re-negotiation. It comes from a failure to reform and renegotiate. It is the status quo which condemns the people of Europe to an ongoing economic crisis and continuing decline." Osborne also said that the EU is facing growing competition with global economic powers like China, India and the US, and the European Union should "reform or decline."[29][30][31]